THE DEVELOPING WORLD
The EU’s development policies are still out of step with its security role
Summer 2007
The European Union is by far the world’s largest provider of development aid, but João Gomes Cravinho, Portugal’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation, questions whether there is sufficient coherence between its development and security policies. He suggests a more consistent approach
Back in 2003, the Council of the EU approved a strategy document stating that “security is a precondition of development”. It was widely seen as an important breakthrough on a contentious subject. Since then there have been official assurances that security and development are complementary aspects of the EU’s external relations, but although there seems to be agreement on the principles, little headway has been made on the practicalities.
The cultural and institutional differences between the military and Europe’s development institutions are considerable, and of course their origins are so very different. The cold war years saw the growth of development institutions in most western European countries, but there was no role for the military in their work. UN Security Council mandates for peacekeeping missions tended to take only a narrow view of security and offered little room for new approaches. And the fact that the EU lacked its own defence framework meant that European military-development doctrines did not have their own space to grow.
But starting in 2003 with Bosnia-Herzogovina, the EU has contributed to a fast-growing number of military missions. Recent experiences in Congo, Afghanistan and East Timor have helped to focus minds on the need to make security and development interventions work together more effectively, without undermining each other.
In many of the countries that receive aid from the EU, the development agencies carry out their work with little or no need for closer collaboration with military partners. This need becomes more apparent in fragile states that are incapable of fulfilling the basic functions of good governance, such as preserving law and order through democratic institutions, and guaranteeing their citizens access to justice, healthcare and education. And it is worth emphasising that not only is security essential for development, but development itself is a sine qua non for security in these fragile states. The links between a failure of development and the onset of violent conflict are obvious.
In fragile states, the conditions for long-term development usually require substantial work with armed forces, and often with militias and irregular forces. Yet some in the development community view all defence institutions as anathema and believe they should be kept out of development work altogether. It is a minority view and less commonly held than in the past, but the suspicion remains. More important, there are persistent concerns that development work may in some cases become subordinate to security objectives, or that donor countries’ attention may start to drift away from countries where there is no evident security challenge. Again, some might fear that development aid could be used to pay for security and peacekeeping missions, but it is important to maintain a clear distinction between military and non-military personnel in humanitarian emergencies if the humanitarians are not to put at risk.
Another difficulty is that, as in the case of UN missions, armed forces prefer a time limit. Although there are good reasons for this, development is an open-ended process that shies away from precise forecasting and programming. Institution-building and improved governance are among the more resilient aspects of development. But it should be feasible to agree upon a set of guidelines for work on this problem.
Taking a more abstract view, there remains a sense that “human” security is a matter for the development community, and “conventional” security is where the military come in. Our argument here is that the military is often needed in situations where human insecurity has not yet led to violent conflict. A long-term view is therefore needed not just to prevent conflict but also when designing post-conflict missions to restore peace.
What should be the next steps for improving cohesion between Europe’s development and security actors? There are a number of ways in which the EU’s institutions and member states can move ahead.
• A policy-orientated research agenda. There are gaps in our knowledge about the links between security, migration and development, and between security, development and drug trafficking. More information on these gaps could offer pointers for the sort of help Europe should be giving to fragile states.
• Set up a mechanism for pooling and disseminating information. Staff from a wide range of different backgrounds should be involved, because the problem is often one of poor communication. Some member states have already accumulated experience in dealing with development versus security priorities.
• The individuals and institutions in host and receiving countries that the EU deals with should be getting the same message form all EU actors. This would increases the EU’s influence and promote policy coherence.
• Donors should be clear about what is required from them. European aid actors must move towards what the OECD has called the “whole-of-government” approach.
• A reactive response is not enough. Go for pro-active engagement. A focus on suggestions of meltdown is merely reactive. Get involved well before and beyond such moments.
• Political support is necessary for this pro-active approach. There has to be persistent dialogue with all actors, inside and outside government.
The EU must show much more leadership by overcoming its institutional difficulties and shortcomings. If it fails it will find itself applying policy prescriptions that have been devised elsewhere. In external relations, the EU needs to produce a more integrated and common understanding of how security and development work together, and it must then translate this understanding into policy. This would be a major leap forward in consolidationing the EU’s role both as the world’s major aid giver, and increasingly as an important player in the global security field.